On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:19:54 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:46:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is
>>> factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.
>> 
>> No, it's not factually wrong.
>> 
>> I just purchased X-Plane 9.  It uses openAL, openGL and a slew of other
>> libraries.
>> 
>> X-Plane is a proprietary software package that links to these libraries
>> which IIRC are licensed under the GPL.
>> 
>> If Austin (the author of X-Plane) had incorporated the libraries into
>> his binary by compiling the code as part, then yes, he would've had to
>> license his whole software package under the GPL.  He didn't and he's
>> within the requirements of using GPL libraries.
>> 
>> The argument about "linking means you have to release your code under
>> the GPL" has been disproven time and time again.
> 
> Hmm, this sounds weird.  You mean dynamic linking an app against a GPL
> lib doesn't require one to GPL the app code as well?  If so, what's the
> point of the LGPL?

I don't believe it does.  But I've not done an in-depth look at the 
differences between GPL and LGPL.  I have read a lot of discussions about 
it, though.

> And I didn't know OpenGL was GPL'd.  In fact, it's a specification only.
>   Are you talking about the mesa lib?

D'oh!  Yes, Mesa is what I'm talking about, it provides libGL.  However, 
Mesa is X11/MIT licensed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message